A THEORY OF INTELLIGENCE Part Two; addendum (Identity)

DAVID: I am a combination of my immaterial mind, my immaterial soul, and my material me. In life as a material me I am in charge with free will. My soul is me but it is also my immaterial essence, so is me but at the same time a copy of me that can passes into the afterlife.

dhw: Why must your immaterial essence be a copy? If your soul is you – containing the immaterial essence of you – why can’t it survive as itself rather than being a copy?

It does survive as itself. But I view it as an immaterial copy of the living me/mind/consciousness.

DAVID: Thus as I think using the brain networks the soul is doing the same.

dhw: We have dealt with “using the brain” a hundred times. What does it use the brain for, apart from information and material expression?

If my soul is me and I use the brain to think so does my soul as it is me in immaterial form.

DAVID: The electricity in the brain is the living material mechanism for thought formation. I am material and I produce thought in the brain . My proposal remains my immaterial soul has a way of creating consciousness out of electricity.

dhw: This theory is as confusing as all the others. How about this for dualism: the immaterial soul produces thought, using the brain to provide information and to give its thought material expression? Too clear for you?[/i]

Too simplistic. I/soul use my brain to create thought using the electric networks. I/soul cnn to create thought without those networks.

DAVID: To simplistic and incomplete for me. Electric impulses becoming immaterial thought need explanation. I still propose the soul part of me creates the consciousness needed.

dhw: Electric impulses are issued by the brain. If they become thought, it is the brain that is generating thought (materialism). If the soul creates thought, the electrical impulses are the RESULT of thought, not the generating cause.

Not what we know from the material side of this. I/soul cannot think without the brain during life.

dhw: […] if the soul is just a reflection and recording of the living you, it plays no role in the formation of you, let alone in the production of thought. And that, surprise, surprise, is fine with me. It is what I have proposed in my “theory of intelligence. […] At the current rate of your theorizing, we should have a deal in about a week’s time.

DAVID: This comment was written by you before I inserted the thoughts above. Do you want to revise your thoughts of my current theory in which I am still approaching me/soul as a dualist combo, in my own special way. I know I think with my brain networks and since I am my soul also, my soul and I think with my brain networks. My soul is never separate from me, but differs from material me since it goes to the afterlife.

dhw: I’m sorry but I find your new theory as confusing as all the old ones, largely because you have reverted to separating your “I” from its dualistic components of soul and brain/body. (Shall we agree to combine soul and mind, since you have already forgotten “mind”?)

I've not forgotten mind. My soul is the mechanism that creates mind/consciousness from the electric networks

dhw: If we remove this confusing distinction, we are left with the following: Your soul thinks – not your soul and you – and it uses your brain in life for information and material expression, and it is the immaterial essence of you that goes into the afterlife. Classic dualism.

Your same rigid concept of dualism. You have separated me and my soul as usual. I and my soul are me, but my soul is also an immaterial representative essence of me that is an exact copy of me that can survive into the afterlife. My soul and I use my brain to form thought and my soul provides the mechanism by which consciousness appears from electricity in the brain which contains the thought..

dhw: If this is your current theory, you have done away with all the elements of your previous theories that supported my own, and so of course I will revise my thoughts about your current theory! Hasta mañana…

You never revise from your rigid view of dualism. We view dualism totally differently in our definitions.